International Conference, 15–16 November 2018

German Historical Institute Paris
Deutsches Historisches Institut Paris
Institut historique allemand Paris

Dynastic centres, or courts, played a pivotal role in the state building processes out of which developed our modern political practices and institutions. Yet, for a long time, the court was regarded primarily as the field of anecdotal ‘petite histoire’ and consequently neglected by scholarly research. In recent years, however, the exploration of the dynastic centre made considerable progress, as historians sought to build on, and go beyond, the venerable sociological models of Norbert Elias. The exploration of symbolic communication, patronage, micro-politics, gender, the body, materiality, and transculturality are only some of the innovative approaches that have been brought to bear on the subject of court history and they have produced remarkable results. We now understand that the court was a multifaceted space for innovation in the arts, and sciences, in religious and political thought, as well as a central hub for the deployment of power relationships. But how do these different aspects interact? And how do these new approaches modify our current understanding of, for instance, state-building narratives? Do they suggest new chronologies, and do we consequently have to rewrite traditional textbook narratives in order to reflect these new impulses? Building on such questions, this conference invites its participants to reflect and discuss on how to conceptualize the political dimension of courtly culture and sociability in the context of a new political historiography of the court.

Programme

See here for the detailed program.

Participants and Papers

See here for a list of participants and their abstracts.

Call for Papers

See here for the Call for Papers.

Information about the Venue

Deutsches Historisches Institut Paris
Institut historique allemand
German Historical Institute

Hôtel Duret-de-Chevry
8 rue du Parc-Royal
75003 Paris

www.dhi-paris.fr

Workshop report, first published in: H-Soz-Kult, 20th December, 2017, <www.hsozkult.de/conferencereport/id/tagungsberichte-7468>.

The workshop took place at the German Historical Institute under the direction of DAVID DO PAÇO (Paris) and PASCAL FIRGES (Paris) and explored the mechanisms of diplomacy in a transcultural context: It focussed on the social life of the diplomatic milieu of Istanbul from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century. Thus, it aimed at collecting further evidence for the centrality of this city in the European diplomatic system. Besides that, it highlighted the role of the various “intermediaries”, “brokers”, and “proxies” diplomats had to rely on in their day-to-day work, as well as the multiple interactions between the diplomatic milieu and its social environment. In his introductory remarks, David Do Paço emphasized the relevance of an agency-centered approach to diplomatic history because it takes into account the importance of second-row personnel and the interrelatedness of sociability and political negotiations.

The first panel, chaired by BERNARD HEYBERGER (Paris), was concerned with external perspectives on the diplomatic society of the Ottoman capital. In the first presentation, RAHUL MARKOVITS (Paris) used a single event – the participation of the Indian traveller Ahmed Khan in a French procession to the Topkapı Palace in 1796 – as a prism through which he examined the competition for influence between France and Britain in the Ottoman Empire. Besides that, his case study showed how imperial and individual interests were interconnected. As Markovits demonstrated, the French supported Khan in order to impress the sultan and to discredit the British who had conquered Khan’s Muslim region of origin. Moreover, the case of Khan, whose success was based on the false assertion that he was of princely origin, also points at the weak spots of imperial information networks and identification procedures at the end of the eighteenth century.

In the second presentation, FERAS KRIMSTI (Oxford) examined how Ottoman and Venetian processions were depicted in the travelogue of Ḥannā ṭ-Ṭabīb, a physician from Aleppo (1764/65). On the one hand, Krimsti pointed out that this text was a source of counter narratives, as Ḥannā was neither part of Istanbul’s society nor of its diplomatic circles. On the other hand, he argued that to a large extent, Hanna’s account parallels descriptions of ceremonies in Ottoman protocol registers. In this perspective, the text shows that the public actually understood the messages the ruling elites wanted to convey with these events.

INDRAVATI FÉLICITÉ (Paris) chaired the second panel in which CHRISTINE VOGEL (Vechta) and HOUSSINE ALLOUL (Antwerp) explored “Sociability and Transcultural Practices of Friendship”. Their presentations also expanded the timespan under consideration in the workshop, as the former examined practices of friendship in French diplomatic sources from late seventeenth-century Istanbul, while the latter discussed the embeddedness of Belgian diplomats in Istanbul’s social milieus of the nineteenth century.

Vogel drew on the example of the relation between the French diplomat Pierre Girardin and the Ottoman official Morali Hasan to explore the limits of cross-cultural friendship. Although Girardin’s comprehensive correspondence books show that the two considered each other as intimate friends, they only met once in person. Friendships like theirs heavily relied on intermediaries of lower social status, who initiated contacts and kept them alive for their superiors. Still, material analyses of gift exchange practices show that friendships like the one between Hasan and Girardin should not be reduced to mere professional relationships: Contacts among officials were based on the exchange of long-lasting and valuable goods which should show superiority and establish dependency. Hasan and Girardin, on the contrary, only sent each other consumer goods in order to strengthen their personal bonds.

In the nineteenth century, close relationships between foreign diplomats and locals were far from being an exception, as HOUSSINE ALLOUL demonstrated in his presentation. As he proved through various examples, friendships between Belgian diplomats and members of the Ottoman bureaucracy were not uncommon. The same holds true for marriages between members of the diplomatic corps and local women. According to Alloul, the question of whether essentialist categories such as “mixed marriages” still offer an adequate approach for future research needs to be addressed. However, even though the intimate social environment of diplomats often transcended national boundaries, true transculturality was hardly to be achieved. Boundaries of class, race, gender, and religion remained highly influential among the diplomatic corps. On top of that, public authorities, both in Western Europe and in the Ottoman Empire, tried to restrain these relations in multiple ways, formally as well as informally.

The two last panels, chaired by PASCAL FIRGES and DAVID DO PAÇO reiterated and developed the key aspects of interpersonal relations, practices of transcultural sociability, and politics in the context of the diplomatic milieu in Istanbul.

MARIYA AMELICHEVA’s (Washington, D.C.) case study dealt with the early period of Russian diplomatic representation in Istanbul, prior to the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca (1774). Her presentation shed light on the multiplicity of challenges foreign diplomats of newly established missions had to face. Firstly, they found themselves at the lower end of an established hierarchy of precedence. Additional pressure could arise from temporary envoys of higher social stand, sent by their countries of origin in order to circumvent the order of priority. Above that, new missions could not rely on pre-existing networks of intermediaries. When trying to establish these ties, they always risked being manipulated by the Ottoman administration or by other embassies, as those offering intermediary services often maintained direct or indirect contacts with several political actors. Thus, Amelicheva’s presentation offered valuable perspectives for research on the particular agency of intermediaries in Istanbul’s diplomatic milieu.

In the following presentation, MICHAEL TALBOT (London) combined the study of diplomatic culture with a quantitative approach. He could show that the activities of the English embassy in Istanbul are to a large extent mirrored by the financial records of the Levant Company, as this commercial organisation was responsible for financing Britain’s diplomatic endeavours in the Ottoman realm. These records point to the paramount importance of gift-giving in the relations with the Porte. But not only do the records give insight into gift exchange on formal occasions, they also account for the multiplicity of small presents made on a daily basis in order to maintain social relations. Working with this kind of source material can thus contribute to a deepened understanding of the Ottoman economy of gift-giving.

FLORIAN KÜHNEL (Göttingen) took a closer look at the position of ambassador’s secretaries. Just like Michael Talbott, he drew on examples from the British embassy. While it is true that secretaries provided the heads of diplomatic missions with professional expertise, they should not be considered as the incarnation of a new type of rational governance as described by Max Weber. Instead, Kühnel advocated a closer examination of individual careers. In this sense, he could show that secretaries’ social networks were of ambivalent use for their superiors: Success depended on these relations. Yet, certain contacts with members of the Ottoman society could also conflict with official policies.

In the last presentation of the day, CHARALAMPOS MINAOGLOU (Athens) retraced how the first Prussian envoys in the Ottoman Empire created a local network in the years after the establishment of a Prussian embassy in Istanbul in 1755. One of the particular features of the Prussian diplomatic activities in the Ottoman Empire was the comparatively high reliance on Greek intermediaries. But on the whole, the Prussian network in Istanbul was far from being atypical. Above all, Minaoglou questioned whether the embassy’s network on the Bosporus was of high value for the Prussian state, while its financial benefits for its members were fairly obvious.

PASCAL FIRGES’s concluding remarks and the following discussion offered perspectives for future research. Additional parameters will have to be taken into consideration: for example, the question of how confessional boundaries structured transcultural interactions merits further attention. Moreover, comparative analyses need to show to what extent observations regarding the situation in Istanbul apply to other hubs of the diplomatic network as well. All in all, the workshop demonstrated the advantages of applying an agency-centered approach to the transcultural socio-political context of the diplomatic milieu in Istanbul.

Workshop Overview:

Introduction
David Do Paço (Paris)

Section I: External Perspectives
Chair/Commentator: Bernard Heyberger (Paris)

Rahul Markovits (Paris): Only a Pawn in their Game? An Indian Prince in the Istanbul Diplomatic Milieu (1795–1796)
Feras Krimsti (Oxford): Appropriating Courtly Protocol: Processions of Istanbul’s Janissaries and European Ambassadors from the Perspective of an Eighteenth-Century Traveller from Aleppo

Section II: Sociability and Transcultural Practices of Friendship
Chair/Commentator: Indravati Félicité (Paris)

Christine Vogel (Vechta): Making Friends and Building Confidence in Transcultural Diplomatic Settings: Practices of Friendship in French Diplomatic Sources from Late Seventeenth-Century Istanbul
Houssine Alloul (Antwerp): ›Transculturality‹ Restrained? Foreign Diplomats and their Social Milieus in Late Ottoman Istanbul

Section III: Ambassadors and their Ottoman Interlocutors
Chair/Commentator: Pascal Firges (Paris)

Mariya Amelicheva (Washington, D.C.): Newcomers: Russian Diplomats in Constantinople
Michael Talbot (London): Gifts and Sociability in Ottoman-British Relations in the Eighteenth Century

Section IV: The Agency of Subordinates
Chair/Commentator: David Do Paço (Paris)

Florian Kühnel (Göttingen): The Glue of the Diplomatic Milieu: Secretaries and their Personal Entanglements in Istanbul
Charalampos Minaoglou (Athens): The Prussians Gaining Agents, Intelligence and Influence in Constantinople (1755–1806)

Conclusion
Pascal Firges (Paris)

Last year, I was lucky enough to participate in the German Historical Institute’s (GHI) visiting scholarship programme for master’s students. The students receive a monthly allowance of 1.200€ from the institute for this research residency, which was in my case aimed at master’s research projects that focused on the early modern period and related to Dr. Firges’ working group on “Practices of Power and Interpersonal Relationships at Dynastic Centres (1500–1800)”. As my tutor told me about the programme, in summer 2015, I already had received a positive answer for a one-year scholarship programme from the German Bundestag and the French National Assembly and was thus already on site in Paris for the interview. The interview at the GHI gave me the opportunity to discuss the contents and duration of the residency and I could thankfully arrange for it to start right after the end of my internship at the Assemblée Nationale.

Arriving and settling in at the GHI

My stay in Paris during the academic year 2015/16 very much fostered my integration in the activities of the institute and, in particular, within the working group for the early modern period. Thanks to the flexibility of its members – especially Mr. Firges and Mrs. Maritz as the two main linchpins – I was able to participate, nearly every week, in the lecture group on courtly society in the early modern era. This enabled me both to keep up with this theme during my excursus in sociology at SciencesPo Paris and to get to know and exchange with many young researchers of the same field. Mobility grants for a diversity of PhD students at the GHI as well as the lecture group and its versatile thematic and methodological focus points provided personal distraction.

During the residency programme, I got to know the members of the working group on courtly society very well, which made my integration within the institute as a whole a lot easier. The different events organized by the GHI – evening meals together, research colloquiums, the “jeudis”, etc – also helped me settle in.

Facilities and working environment

The German Historical Institute’s central location in the very heart of the Marais, in the third arrondissement, as well as the stunning architecture of its premises – the Hôtel Duret-de-Chevry – make for a stunning work environment. The GHI’s own library – which covers Western history – is open to scholarship holders pursuing their master’s degree from ten to six p.m. During my stay, I was also able to study in the salles de recherche of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (BnF). In addition, these two libraries offer an exhaustive fundus of edited sources as well as an extensive catalogue of secondary literature in French, English and German.

Moreover, the GHI offers its employees and fellows a room for common lunches, which fosters a relaxed atmosphere and a fruitful exchange beyond historical periods. As I mentioned, my integration had been facilitated by weekly meetings within the lecture group. Other scholarship holders who worked in the BnF reported having difficulties integrating the institute. The monthly “Hausinformationen”, during which newcomers – researchers, PhD students and scholarship holders – present themselves and their research project, are also a great opportunity to practice networking. The activities of the institute’s different branches are also presented and this insight into the administrative and organisational issues and the functioning of a research institute proved very interesting.

Scientific guidance

The inclusion of my research project within the working group on courtly societies in the early modern period enabled me to successfully blend in the early modern era department. Alongside the lecture group, regular team meetings gave me the opportunity to discuss of progress and difficulties as well as to address formal and theoretical issues concerning my research project with the other members. This framework thus helped me to keep my research question and methodological focus in mind, as well as to broaden my sources in a targeted and adequate way but also to sufficiently narrow them. Indeed, Regine and Pascal suggested I include two original texts which I had overlooked. Thanks to the lecture group, I learnt from the PhD students’ and researchers’ own experience and could submit my own findings to their collective criticism, especially concerning important parameters of the early modern era, such as sociality, religiosity and mobility. This regular exchange of ideas also enabled me to locate my own perspectives and research questions within the realm of the research on early modern court practices and I could thus connect my own work with current and future research projects. I should also mention that the guidance I was given not only opened new perspectives but laid bare the limits of my work: what is the extent of my sources’ relevance for my research question? Which questions can I not answer without examining other epochal and regional focal points?

Conclusion

My stay at the GHI in Paris has been a very enriching experience, both personally and professionally. Besides from the valuable scientific guidance I received, I experienced the residency scholarship as a sort of simulation of a PhD. I learnt the amenities and challenges of scientific work, which include focusing exclusively on one’s research project, without for instance having to take up a side job to finance one’s studies. These positive experiences cemented and strengthened my once vague intention of pursuing a PhD. Apart from the analytical and methodological skills I acquired, I also learnt how to optimize my work methods to be more efficient when searching for relevant secondary literature and appropriate sources as well as when preparing and organizing a bigger work. This kind of experience does not only have a positive impact on the quality of one’s thesis – it can also hugely benefit the motivation of prospective researchers. The location and international orientation of the institute also contribute to the improvement of one’s language skills – as much for French as for English – which are essential for any researcher today.

The format of the residency scholarship offers a fantastic opportunity to gain some insight into the work of a historian outside of university structures, become familiar with the fields of activity of such research institutes and question one’s personal aptitude and desire to pursue such a career. Such programmes provide lasting support for younger researchers, as a concrete insight into the professional field of an academic could help reduce the estimated dropout rates of PhDs[1].

[1] According to a publication by the HiS, between 30 and 45 percent of PhD candidates drop out. See Steffen Jaksztat, Nora Preßler, Kolja Briedis (2012), Promotion im Fokus. Promotions- und Arbeitsbedingungen Promovierender im Vergleich, HIS: Forum Hochschule, 15/2012, S47f. URL: https://www.dzhw.eu/pdf/pub_fh/fh-201215.pdf (14.03.2017).

Working title of the MA-thesis: “Security Strategies in Court Society. Short- and Long-Term Factional Politics During the Late Reign of Louis XIV”. Stephanie Bode (Marburg University)

The Student-in-Residence-Program offers students who consider applying for a PhD the opportunity to deepen and broaden their research experience. Visiting fellows are actively involved in one of the research groups at the GHI while still being allowed to work on their own research projects. The participation in the research group “Practices of Power and Interpersonal Relationships at Dynastic Centres (1500–1800)” meant that I attended team meetings and the reading group, both of which gave me the opportunity to discuss relevant research questions with experienced researchers and I greatly benefited from this exchange. As my own research topic was closely linked to the group’s research interests, I got very helpful advice for my own project. As well as being able to exchange thoughts and ideas, I was allowed to gain an excellent insight into the research process in general. For instance, I gained some insight into how to maximize the potential of a chosen research project, by using different methodologies. Regular meetings with Pascal Firges, head of the research group, gave me new inspiration and encouragement.

Furthermore, I very much appreciated learning more about various research topics in the field of historical scholarship. Although all the other projects within the research group were related to my own field of research in some way, they were an impressive testimony to the variety and complexity of research in general.

The Visiting Scholarship provided another great opportunity: I was allowed to work on my master’s thesis. Of course, a master’s thesis can hardly be compared to a PhD. However, during these three months at GHI, I was able to deepen and broaden my insight into the field of academic research. For me, this was an excellent opportunity to find out what would await me if I decided to apply for a PhD.

The impact of the access to the GHI library as well as to the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) on my research cannot be overstated. Marburg University’s library would clearly not have provided as many sources for my topic. Even more important than the access to research literature was the access to the stock of primary sources at the BnF. I was able to examine multiple correspondences at the Richelieu and Arsenal libraries, which proved to be of great value for my thesis as they revealed the courtiers’ factional politics.

Besides the very useful results I received from the sources at the BnF, I appreciated the fact that I could analyze primary sources on my own for the very first time – I no longer worked as a student assistant but as an independent historian. Working on these collections of historical documents gave me the opportunity to get more familiar with primary sources before beginning a PhD.

This experience has made it easier for me to consider an academic career in the long run. Being familiar with the administrative procedures at the BnF makes me feel much more confident for a potential doctorate. I am now able to assess what my work might look like, should I choose to pursue this career. While talking with other PhD candidates, I realized that many of them would have appreciated an opportunity like this before beginning their doctorate.

In sum, all my expectations of the program have been met. I had a fantastic time at the GHI, and participating in  the research group “Practices of Power and Interpersonal Relationships at Dynastic Centres (1500–1800)” for a three-month period proved very valuable for my research.

“Interpersonal Relations in Court Societies: Theory and Methodology in Practice”

Application deadline: 24 January 2016

On 22 March 2016 the one-day workshop “Interpersonal Relations in Court Societies: Theory and Methodology in Practice”, organised by our research group “Practices of Power and Interpersonal Relationships at Dynastic Centres (1500-1800)”, will take place at the GHI Paris.
As innovative research in historical court studies is based on the solid ground of theoretical reflexion, this workshop focuses on methodological approaches and models for the understanding of the court as a political and social institution. The workshop’s objective is to create a forum for discussions about the various ways how the innovative and creative use of theories and methodologies can contribute to the research in the bourgeoning field of historical court studies.
At the one-day workshop the participants will be given the opportunity to present a specific theoretic or methodological approach that he or she has found particularly useful and inspiring for their work. Before the workshop, each contributor will circulate a short published theoretical or methodological text (a chapter or an article), which will be read by all participants. On the day of the event, all scholars will provide a short presentation of about 20-30 minutes in length, which will comprise the following elements: a brief introduction to the individual research topic and a discussion of how the circulated approach could be fruitfully applied to the presented thematic. Work-in-progress is welcome, and all presentations will be followed by a constructive discussion. We are particularly interested in comparative and transcultural approaches, not only where they are concerned with Western European court societies, but also where they include dynastic centres outside of Europe.
Working languages are French and English. We expect the ability to follow discussions in both languages.
Travel costs for participants will be covered and accommodation can be provided. Please apply with a short cover message (including details on language skills), an abstract of the planned presentation of no more than 200 words, as well as a Curriculum Vitae to Pascal Firges (pfirges@dhi-paris.fr). For any enquiries please contact Pascal Firges or Regine Maritz (rmaritz@dhi-paris.fr).

In 1990, the Residenzen-Kommission (Commission for research into courtly residences) of the Göttingen Academy of Sciences published their first edited volume of a series, entitled Residenzenforschung, containing a variety of lectures and abstracts that dealt with recent questions and perspectives of the field in Germany (vol. 1, 1990). It was the introduction to a total of twenty-six volumes which were published by the commission over the following twenty-five years. Today, the Residenzenforschung is the most important publication series focusing on the history of residences and courts in the Holy Roman Empire from the Middle Ages up to early modern times.

The commission comprises thirteen members and was headed by Werner Paravicini, the former director of the German Historical Institute in Paris. It offers to the interested public an opus, which consists of fourteen edited volumes, ten monographs, one compendium (with five sub-volumes) and one edition of primary source material. This goes above and beyond the original concept, which planned for a main line of nine edited volumes, which were to assemble articles written for the eleven symposia, which were held between 1990 and 2008 in cooperation with different research institutions. The commission cooperated with the universities of Potsdam, Kiel, Dresden and Greifswald, as well as the archive of Celle, the Landesmuseum of Schleswig-Holstein and the German Historical Institute in Paris. Published at an interval of two years (first volume: third symposium 1992, publ. 1995; last volume: eleventh symposium 2008, publ. 2010), these edited volumes mirror the key aspects of the commission’s work and focus on questions of Everyday Court Life (vol. 5, 1995), Ceremonial and Space (vol. 6, 1997), Courts and Court Ordinances (vol. 10, 1999), Women’s Living Spaces (vol. 11, 2000), Upbringing and Education at the Court (vol. 13, 2002), The Case of the Favorite (vol. 17, 2004), The Court and the City (vol. 20, 2006), Court Economy (vol. 21, 2008) and Interresidential Perception and Exchange (vol. 23, 2010).

The series includes monographs, which focus on case studies of selected courts of the Holy Roman Empire, such as The Princely Residence City of Passau in Late Medieval Germany (vol. 3, 1992, by Konrad Amann), Ruling Centres in the Prince-Archbishopric of Trier in the Late Middle Ages (vol. 4, 1995, by Dieter Kerber), Residence, Court and Administration of the Archbishops of Magdeburg in the City of Halle in the First Half of the Sixteenth Century (vol. 7, 1998, by Michael Scholz), The Genesis of the Princely Residence of Heidelberg in the Fourteenth Century (vol. 8, 1999, by Johann Kolb), The Catharinenburg as the Residence of Pfalzgraf Johann Casimir von Zweibrücken, 1619-1622 (vol. 12, 2000, by Liliane Châtelet-Lange), Administration, Communication and Consumption at the Court of the Bishop Johannes von Venningen in Basel 1458-1478 (vol. 16, 2004, by Volker Hirsch) and Ruling, Social and Communicative Aspects of the Bishop of Konstanz in the Fourteenth Century (vol. 18, 2005, by Andreas Bihrer).

The mentioned volumes are complemented by a small amount of special monographs whose focus is situated outside the German territories or on more cross-sectional problems: Non-Royal Residences in Late Medieval England (vol. 2, 1990, by Kurt-Ulrich Jäschke), Late Medieval Bills, Administration Practices – Court and Territory as the Origins of Territorial Accounting in the German North-West (vol. 9, 2000, by Mark Mersiowsky), Dying, Death, Entombment and Liturgical Remembrance of Secular Imperial Princes in the Late Middle Ages (vol. 19, 2006, by Cornell Babendererde). Moreover, the series includes some edited volumes based on other conferences organized by members or colleagues of the commission: Dynasties and Courts in the Late Middle Ages (vol. 14, 2002), Princely Self-Portrayal and its Reception: Between Groups and Individuals 1450-1550 (vol. 22, 2009), Structures of Ecclesiastical Courts and Residences Using the Example of Salzburg in the Middle Ages and in Modernity (vol. 24, 2011) and Integration and Competition between Urban Bourgeoisie and Court Society in Residence Cities and Capitals from the Fourteenth to the Nineteenth Century (vol. 25, 2011).

A special place within the series takes the compendium Courts and Residences in the Late Medieval Empire by Werner Paravicini. It is subdivided into three parts (with a total of five volumes) and consists of the handbooks Dynasties and Courts (vol. 15.I/1, 2003) and Residences (vol. 15.I/2, 2003), an encyclopedia of Terms (vol. 15.II/1, 2005), the illustrated book on Pictures (vol. 15.II/2, 2005) and the volume Court and Documents (vol. 15.III, 2007) – a kind of presentation of and introduction to the enormous variety of courtly documents. The final volume of the series is a primary source edition by Brigitte Kasten and Margarete Bruckhaus who assembled the court ordinances, office rules and regiment orders of the duchy of Jülich-Kleve-Berg from 1456/1521 up to 1609 (vol. 26, 2015).

It was already mentioned that the Residenzenforschung concentrates primarily on the Holy Roman Empire. Nevertheless, the edited volumes of the series include numerous articles discussing aspects of courts and residences outside the empire. Contributions like Some aspects of daily Routine at the Brabant Court between the End of the Fourteenth and the Beginning of the Fifteenth Century (by André Uyttebrouck, vol. 5, p. 149-170), Everyday Life and Festival at the Hungarian Court of Jagellons 1490-1526 (by András Kubinyi, vol. 5, p. 197-218), Per honore della ciptà. Ceremonial during the Florentine Quattrocento using the Example of the Visit of Galeazzo Maria Storza in April 1459 (by Susanne Kress, vol. 6, p. 113-128), Rhodos as the Residence Island of the Order of St. John. Fight against the pagans in a knightly and courtly Atmosphere (by Detlev Kraack, vol. 6, p. 215-238), The structure of the Majorcan Court about 1350 and the Habit of the Court’s Society (by Gottfried Kerscher, vol. 10, p. 77-90), Female Living Spaces at the Court of the last Valois (by Monique Chatenet, vol. 11, p. 175-192), The Court of Philipp II of Spain. Education and Upbringing in the Time of Confessionalization (by Antonio Sáez-Arance, vol. 13, p. 177-192) or Court and City, a Tense Relation in the Burgundian Netherlands (by Wim Blockmans, vol. 25, p. 71-80) create a wide range of perspectives on the court and residence research on a European scale.

The whole series was published by the Thorbecke Verlag Sigmaringen/Stuttgart/Ostfildern. German is the main language of all volumes, but there are also sizeable numbers of English and French articles included, as well as one single Italian article. Most of the mentioned titles are translated into English by the author of this text.

To get an overview at a glance about the detailed structure and all contents of “Residenzenforschung”, be sure to use this PDF, which presents the bibliographical information of the series in table form.

In 2012, a new project got into the position of the Residenzen-Kommission. The Göttingen Academy of Sciences continues to work in this field now under the heading Court Cities in the Holy Roman Empire (1300-1800). Urbanism as a Network of Integrative and Competing Relationships between Seignoral Rulership and Civic Community, which is directed by a new leadership commission.

Early modern court historiography has been very productive in the twentieth and twenty-first century. Researchers dealing with the history of princely courts in Europe can have great use of this variety, but when being new in the field researchers and students may be seeking for orientation. With the intention of giving an – albeit limited – overview, this post is going to present some of the most important works on European courts, their networks and functioning:

A useful introduction to a number of important European courts between 1500 and 1750 can be found in the essays collected by John Adamson in “The Princely Courts of Europe. Ritual, Politics and Culture under the Ancien Régime 1500–1750”, (London, 2000). The volume contains an introduction and twelve essays, each presenting a different European court (Spain, France/Navarra, England/Great Britain, United Provinces, Holy See, Austria/Bohemia, Bavaria, Brandenburg/Prussia, Savoy/Sardinia, Tuscany, Sweden, Russia). Each article discuess the ceremonial and architectural settings of the court in question, describes the princely household contained within it, and explains court life. This volume provides a very good overview but, anyone beyond the most general readers will find that they have to read up on more specialized studies on the courts they are particularly interested in.

One of these is Jeroen Dunidam’s comparative work on the courts of “Vienna and Versailles. The Courts of Europe’s Dynastic Rivals 1550–1780”. The author analyses expenditures and daily routines, as well as the roles of favourites at court and their connection to politics. The broad temporal scope of the study is combined with in-depth source work and yields important new interpretations on the role of courts in state-building and criticized Norbert Elias from new angles.

The German scholar Leonhard Horowski presented in his remarkable PhD thesis a detailled prosopographical study on French noble court members starting 1661, the year Louis XIV began to rule independently, and up until the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789. In “Die Belagerung des Thrones” published in 2012 (reviewed here by Andreas Pečar), Horowski analysies the lives and careers of 687 court members awarded a dukedom, a first rang court office (as it was in the King’s, the Queen’s or the Royal children’s households) or an Order of the Holy Spirit. Based on these results, the author analyses the famous court “factions” in Versailles and the role of the noblility at the French court, their marrying politics, financial and economic backgrounds and politcal motivations. He stresses the nobility’s important influence during this entire period. Old noble families played a major part in French court system and hence in French politics.

Undoubtedly, the “Court Society” of the sociologist Norbert Elias (1897–1990) has been one of the most influential and discussed books for early modern historiography in the twentieth century. Therefore, his impact on more than fifty years of historical research cannot be underestimated. But in the course of the examination and analysis of Elias’ theories, historians have both adapted and deconstructed it. Especially his idea of a “Royal Mechanism” – playing off the traditional nobility against a raising bourgeoisie and thus controlling both – has found its critics. However, students dealing with the early modern court should certainly study Elias’ theory of the functioning of courtly societies and also be aware of the following studies:

An excellent starting point for studying the criticism of Elias’ work is Jeroen Duindam’s work on “Myths of Power. Norbert Elias and the Early Modern European Court” (reviewed here by Martin Dinges) in 1995. In his detailed analysis, Duindam uncovers logical inconsistencies in Elias’ theory of the court and contradicts Elias by confronting the “domestication of nobility” with new research results on nobles’ power and influence at European courts.

Another example of deconstructing Elias, an article of German scholar Leonhard Horowski should be mentioned here. Based on Duindam’s work and on his own prosopographical research, Horowski succeeds to show in terms of content and method why Elias should not be quoted uncritically. His article is freely accessible and can be downloaded on perspectivia.net. Also Horowski’s outstanding prosopographical analysis provides an elaborate discussion of Elias’ work.

Shortly after Norbert Elias had presented the ideas of the “Court Society” at Frankfurt University in 1933, he was forced to flee abroad from the restrictions and the terror of the Nazi regime and the “Court Society” has therefore not been published before 1969. In 2003, a colloquium took place on the occasion of the seventieth anniversary of Elias’ theory. The papers of this conference were published by Claudia Opitz in “Höfische Gesellschaft und Zivilisationsprozess. Norbert Elias’ Werk in kulturwissenschaftlicher Perspektive” (reviewed here by Jan Hirschbiegel) and present a wide approach to the sociologist’s life and work. The articles prove that – even though many of Elias’ central ideas have been critically reviewed – the topicality of Elias’ method and its value for academic research in history and other fields.

The importance of scientific databases and online platforms for historical scholarship is evident. The methodical and geographical diversity of early modern court historiography creates a particular demand for the linking of research projects. In view of this, the present post aims to present a small selection of important online projects, which may be of use to interested students and “newcomers” in this field of historical research.

The French court holds a central position in court historiography. It is thus not surprising that a whole online platform is dedicated to French dynastic and courtly history: Cour de france.fr offers reviews on recent publications, a vast bibliography, call for papers and refers to upcoming academic events. The platform provides direct access to highly readable, online material and is structured into five major topics: “Histoire et fonction”, “Art et culture”, “Représentation et féstivités”, “Individus, familles et groupes”, “Historiographie et méthodologie”. Furthermore the website gives access to prosopographical databases and links to a variety of other research projects. Users of this platform will find numerous articles introducing the field, as well as pointers for more in-depth research.

While Cour de France.fr focuses on the French court, the platform “Marrying cultures. Queen Consorts and European Identities” aims to bring together individual research projects on queen consorts in all of early modern Europe. The research group’s stated aim is to study “how culture was transferred between European kingdoms through the person and the court of the consort”. The group consists of a cooperation between the University of Oxford, Kensington Palace, the Royal Armoury in Stockholm, and the Duke August Library in Wolfenbüttel. Besides the information regarding the individual projects, this website offers literature recommendations, as well as a general introduction to Queen Consorts and the project’s methodical groundwork.

The “court” refers both to the material dimension of the princely residence, as well as to the entirety of the people living and working within its confines. As a result, the personal dimension of a court has to be one starting point of court historiographical research but also constitutes – with regard to the great number of courtiers – a challenge. For facing this challenge, scientific prosopographical databases provide a huge amount of biographical data on court members as well as court servants: Researchers and students dealing with the court of the Austrian Habsburgs will find very useful the database “Kaiser und Höfe. Eine prosopographische Datenbank”. The projects aims to identify courtiers and provide users with their curricula vitae by analyzing the voluminous “Hofstaatsverzeichnisse” and “Hofzahlamtsbücher”. As every Habsburg household from Ferdinand I. (1503–1564) to Leopold I. (1640–1705) will be presented, this longterm project is still a work in progress. Due to its detailed data on the registered persons including links to bibliographies, online digitalization and archival indices, this database will be an invaluable tool for any research project on Austrian court society.

Furthermore researchers interested in the Austrian court can look forward to the launch of a new database entitled „Personnel and Organization of the Viennese Court (1711-1806) – organizational and prosopographical studies on the early modern Viennese Court”. Based on an analysis of the “Hofkalender“ and the “Hofparteienprotokolle”, the database will provide scholars with rich information about courtiers at the court of Habsburg.

The prospographical research these two databases (will) offer are necessary for in-depth analyzing of early modern courts in Europe. They not only promise interesting possibilities for research on courtly careers, the distribution of courtly offices and structures of hierarchy and power, but also on how people at courts interacted and thus “did” politics. As for example the recent publication of Leonhard Horowski has shown, this prospographical knowledge is an important starting point for studies on “Practices of Power and Interpersonal Relationships at Dynastic Centres”.

1) A new opportunity has arisen to become involved with the GHI research group “Practices of Power and Interpersonal Relationships at Dynastic Centres (1500-1800). A grant is available for students intending to write an M.A. thesis relating to our research interests. Support to work as part of the team here in Paris is available for two to six months for the right candidate. Details of the CFA can be found here. The deadline for applications is the 1st October 2015.

2) The medieval history blog is running  a series of articles on the topic of courtly careers under the title “Rise and Fall at European Courts of the Middle Ages”. Do not be put off by the temporal description. Scholars of great relevance for the early modern period, such as Jan Hirschbiegel and Jeroen Duindam, write for the series. The next installment is announced for the 21st June, which is to be written by Christoph Mauntel, and articles by Sebastian Zanke and Duindam are to follow a month later.

Philipp Haas, A Dynastic Ménage à trois? The Marriage of Charlotte Amalie of Hesse-Kassel and the Rapprochment of Denmark and Brandenburg (1667)

Philipp Haas analysed the marriage of Charlotte Amalie of Hesse-Kassel as a dynastic ménage à trois. Haas defined security benefits for the negotiators Brandenburg, Denmark and Hesse-Kassel, not only in terms of territorial peace, but his research emphasised further the goods, values, and interests these agents wanted to protect.
To create binding ties between Brandenburg and Denmark as an alliance against Sweden, the Elector of Brandenburg initiated the marriage of his niece Charlotte Amalie of Hesse-Kassel and the crown prince Christian of Denmark in 1667. A defence alliance between Brandenburg and Denmark was signed in 1666, as well as a multilateral alliance, including also the Netherlands and Braunschweig-Lüneburg.
Haas made clear that Hesse-Kassel, although a minor ruling dynasty, played a key role in creating these alliances. In addition Charlotte Amalie was able to keep her Calvinist faith with the support of Brandenburg. In Denmark she was represented as equal in rank to her husband and in 1700, now as queen, she acted as an agent of a marriage- and alliance-negotiation between Hesse-Kassel and Brandenburg, thus connecting her house and territory with Brandenburg and further isolating Sweden.
In the discussion afterwards, Haas explained that he structures his dissertation according to the defined types of security interests: protection of values, goods and interest. Thus he is also able to organise his different types of sources.

Johanna Hellmann, Marie Antoinette’s Personal and Political Agency as Portrayed in German Diplomatic Reports During the War of the Bavarian Succession (1778/1779)

Johanna Hellmann presented a part of her research on Marie Antoinette as she is portrayed in German diplomatic reports from Prussian, Habsburg and Saxon envoys during the Bavarian war of succession. These letters are rare sources for the understanding of Marie Antoinette as political agent and private figure: Although Marie Antoinette appears in some letters to be rather self-determined, she is often described as object of her family’s interest and without influence on the decisions of Louis XVI. Additionally, the reports illuminate the different positions of envoys at the French court, as they reflect the relationship between France and Habsburg, Prussia and Saxony. Firstly, the envoys had different levels of access to Marie Antoinette: The reports to the court of Vienna by Count Florimond Claude de Mercy-Argenteau, the imperial ambassador in Versailles, are more accurate as he was close to Marie Antoinette than these of Bernhard Wilhelm von der Goltz, the Envoyé of the King of Prussia. The biggest distance existed between Marie Antoinette and the Saxon diplomats, whose reports are rather superficial and speculative. Secondly, the reports reflect current policies: The reports of von der Goltz are more critical than those of Mercy-Argenteau or the Saxon diplomats, certainly because of tensions between Prussia and Habsburg.
In the discussion, the suggestion came up to to widen the scope of this interesting study through the examination of a queen in a similar situation to Marie Antoinette, for example her sister Maria Karolina. In this way it might be possible to evaluate in more depth the pressures of the expectations Marie Antoinette faced and how she managed these.

Carolin Pecho, Cui bono? The Relationship Between Hartger Henot and Archeduke Leopold as an Example of Failed Patronage

Carolin Pecho examined the relationship between Archduke Leopold of Austria and Hartger Henot, a canon of the cathedral of Cologne. Thus she presented not only a special type of asymmetrical patronage, but also gave an instructive insight into the family politics and ruling strategies of the Habsburg family from 1608-1634.
As third son of the Styria line of the Habsburg family, Leopold initially was made prince-bishop of Passau and Strasbourg, despite having a distinct interest in worldly politics. Nevertheless, he pursued his own interests using non-family networks and his advisers were mostly experienced social climbers without a wealthy or reputational background, who wanted to improve their own position. One of them was Hartger Henot.
In the “Habsburg Bruderzwist” (1605-12), Leopold was first in opposition to archduke Matthias and wanted to attain Tirol or Bohemia in order to stand a chance to be elected as Rudolf’s heir. Therefore he tried to gain the support of the majority of the Electorate group and to attain attention in Europe through engaging in the Jülich-Cleve-Crisis. In this he was successful since he managed to take the fortress of Jülich through a cunning plan executed with the help of Hartger and Seraphim Henot. The trio entered the fortress incognito with Leopold and Seraphim posing as Hartger’s servants. This enterprise was incredibly risky for all of them, since they were surrounded by soldiers and the Henot brothers were rewarded for their part in this with advantageous positions. Yet, when Leopold finally achieved governance over Tirol and some other territories, the relationship to Henot offered no further benefits for him and he thus distanced himself from his servant, a common strategy of Leopold. He did not intervene during an witch trial against Hartger’s sister Catherina 1626. Letters from Hartger Henot to Leopold appeal to their once close connection, as Henot calls for a reconciliation. But these appeals could not induce Leopold to change his position, although he preserved the letters of Henot in his chancellery of Tirol and thus did not erase all memory of their connection.
After the presentation several attenders commented that Pecho’s study is not only of utmost importance as new explication of the “Habsburg Bruderzwist”, but also for a better understanding of how social mobility might work – or not- in this context.

Irene Kubiska-Scharl, The Personal Networks of the Chamberlains at the Court of Vienna (1740-1790)

Irene Kubiska-Scharl presented results of her research on “Institutional Structures and Personal Networks in the Chamber Staff at the Court of Vienna (1740-1790). She focussed on the higher middle class and the lower nobility, who held key-positions in the court-administration. One of her main sources, the annual staff lists of the Court-Calendar – which she had already analysed for the creation of a database on careers at the court – show that family networks established themselves in the court service. Kubiska-Scharl found that patrimony was incredibly important, but that the veto on the distribiton of positions lay with the emperor. Positions close to the monarch’s family members, like chamberwomen or -maids were usually distributed to children or siblings, of servants because they were already acquainted with the courtly life and the job requirements. In the case of court artisans or craftsmen patrimony was above all advantageous as fathers trained their sons. Other recruitment criteria were patronage, merit, and favour. For instance, chamberwomen were often widows of favoured courtiers and the loyalty of servants was often rewarded with positions at court for their children. Marriages, which were only allowed for high court members, could be chances to create new or stabilize old family networks within the court service, although the choice of a marriage partner was influenced by preferences of the imperial couple.
In the discussion Kubiska-Scharl explained that dismissals of court staff members were rare. Court staff members were usually only temporarily dismissed, for example for theft, which was in the interest of both parties. The court had no interest in employing new personnel and the court staff members themselves were dependent on their positions.

Conclusion and Acknowledgments

With this the first workshop of the research group ‚Practices of Power and Interpersonal Relationships at Dynastic Centres‘ came to a close. It was a highly stimulating day that introduced a rich variety of research projects connected in their effort to analyse the complex web of interpersonal relationships in courtly contexts and their great significance for early modern practices of power. Our topic was masterfully introduced by Jeroen Duindam’s lecture, which problematized female dynastic power in a truly global scope. The following day the workshop proper was launched with Pascal Firges’s structural analysis of a particular type of gendered power relationship, namely the oft-mythologised extra-marital liaison at the French court. Regine Maritz picked up on the topic of gendered experience of power in her comparatively connected discussion of the Frauenzimmer in the Holy Roman Empire and the Harem in Safavid Persia. The morning was rounded off by Callie Wilkinson who introduced us to the simultaneous intercultural connection and anxiety that surrounded the relationships of British East India Company Officials and their Indian courtly representatives. We enjoyed further discussions over a lunch break that was illuminated by the Parisian spring sun before returning to our formal workshop schedule to hear Philip Haas illuminate a little known case of dynastic marriage, which was invested with the security interests of actors well beyond the two families who came to be connected in this union. Johanna Hellmann utilised the letters of German diplomats at the French court to consider the image they convey of Marie Antoinette, but also of the relationship between France and the different German territories. The penultimate paper of the day was given by Carolin Pecho, who presented an aspect of her very advanced doctoral project on the self-positioning of Archduke Leopold of Austria in the form of an analysis of one of his patronage relationships, which revealed a great deal about the subjective intricacy of early modern high politics. Finally, we heard Irene Kubiska-Scharl speak on the personal networks of chamber staff at the court of Vienna. Her great expertise in this topic due to her work on a database containing comprehensive lists of the staff of the court of Vienna provided an ideal background to our final discussion round of the day.

Of course, this was not the end of our exchange as we continued onwards to dinner, which was accompanied by further animated discussion. All in all, it was a particularly enriching day and a great way to launch the GHI research project ‘Practices of Power and Interpersonal Relationships’. We would like to express our heartfelt thanks to all participants whose readiness to discuss and exchange new ideas went well beyond our expectations and was crucial to the success of this day. Particular thanks also go to Jeroen Duindam, whose thoughtful comments punctuated the day impeccably.

Our final word of thanks goes to Konstanze Schiemann and Anna Parrisius, who not only were a crucial support in the running of this workshop, but who also took it upon themselves to write the preceding report.

Jeroen Duindam, Female Power in Dynastic History

The workshop was launched on Thursday with the keynote lecture delivered by Jeroen Duindam, professor for Early Modern History at the University of Leiden. Duindam specialises in comparative court history and is about to publish a book entitled “Dynasty. A Global History 1300-1800.” For Duindam, a theme as universal as dynastic power demands to be analysed with a global scope and he takes into account dynasties from all over Asia, Africa, and Europe. In Paris, he presented one aspect of his forthcoming work, namely the problem of “Female Power in Dynastic History“. Women in supreme positions of power were rare in Duindam’s sample of studies, and when they appeared, they were never the ‘natural’ or even the preferred ruler. Rather, they stepped in temporarily where male succession was rendered impossible. These women are often described as male, or are male-gendered which Duindam ascribed to a perceived contradiction between femininity and power.
Duindam presented the most interesting case of the Rain Queen Dynasty which ruled Lovedu in South Africa continuously for over 200 years after the first queen came to power due to the magical rain-making powers that were ascribed to her. Her reign paved the way for her female successors. The six Rain Queens that ruled between 1800 and 2005 were however perceived as male and in fact married women in order to integrate the elites of her territory. European missionaries and travellers often failed to see the matrilineal succession and female primogeniture because of their presupposition that only men could in fact rule. This is also where a bias of the written record about female power stems from: either women are made invisible as in the case mentioned or they are judged negatively, often the result of a narrative constructed after their actual reign.
Aside from rare examples like the Rain Queens, women holding supreme power remained the exception and more often than sitting on the throne they found themselves in influential positions around it. A prime example is the harem of the Persian court where women secured the royal succession as mothers and were important for the integration of the social elite by intermarriage; both of these functions served as a base for female power. Duindam noticed here that the European dynastic system actually must be seen as an exception in the sense that polygyny represents the rule in a global context.
The lecture of Duindam was commented by Chantal Grell, professor in modern history at the University of Versailles. She was interested in the challenge of comparing sources from different cultural contexts. The non-European cases are often transmitted to us through European intermediaries and thus come with an inherent bias. Duindam is nevertheless convinced that we cannot exclude such materials as they are often our only sources for non-Western societies, and in this he builds on anthropological approaches and methodologies. Grell was further interested in how Duindam integrated the findings of gender studies in his analysis of women at courts around the globe. As Duindam compiled in his book complex source material and several different case studies, he abstained from explicitly mentioning the conceptual approaches of Gender Studies. Nevertheless, they are implicitly present in his analysis, especially in those cases where women lose their femininity because of their powerful status but also when talking about the construction of masculinity through the image of the male ruler.

Pascal Firges, Extra-martial Alliances? Mistresses in French Court Politics (1660-1789)

The opening presentation to the workshop on Friday, took up the subject of gender, as Pascal Firges treated the role of mistresses in French court politics of the 17th and 18th century. Firges is the principal investigator the research group “Machtstrategien und interpersonale Beziehungen in dynastischen Zentren (1500–1800)“ at the GHIP, and in his talk he investigated the political and tactical relevance of concubinage relationships that formed among the members of the French court nobility. He challenged the idea that women served as objects of exchange in between families to secure loyalties. Rather, those loyalties were built through an exchange system of symbolic and material goods through men and women.
Even though one can safely state that the individuals involved in concubinage held more agency in the choice of the respective partner than they did in their choice of a spouse, one should not underestimate the influence that political interest and family strategy had on the extramarital relationship. Firges seeks to emphasise this crucial point with a structural analysis of concubinage and mistresses. In this intention, he proposed three hypothesis, exemplified by the case of Choiseul Stainville and his mistresses la Marquise de Contaut, la Princesse de Robecq, and la Comtesse de Brionne. Firstly he stated that the amant and the maîtresse generally belonged to the same status group in such a way, that a potential marriage would not mean a mesalliance. Secondly, the maîtresse and the amant belonged to the same faction. Thirdly, those kinds of relationships were controlled by the authorities of the respective families, who not only initiated or approved such liaisons, but might prohibit a relationship and forcefully separate two partners, which was a political act as well.
In the discussion, the suspicion that those relationships might have been only friendships or political unions was dismissed, since it seems clear that emotions and sexuality were also determining factors besides political reasoning. Some structural questions were touched on, for example, if the nobility built on concubinage as a strategy when constructing power relations, and if mistresses were an indispensable asset for a political career. Firges’ research project aims to answer these questions in due course.

Regine Maritz, Configurations of Gender at the Early Modern Court (1580-1630). The Use of Comparative Analysis

The second presentation of the day was held by Regine Maritz, doctoral candidate in the research group of Firges, who proceeded to engage with the theme of gender. She outlined two cases where changes to the familial and sexual systems at court were cause for an exceptional backlash at the crucial moment of succession from one ruler to the next. The first case took place at the court of Württemberg, where Johann Friedrich succeeded his father duke Friedrich I. in 1608, and immediately imprisoned all the women who were suspected of having had affairs with his father. The second case is located in Persia where Shah ‘Abbās was succeeded by his grandson Shah Safi in 1629. Safi executed forty women of the harem alongside a great number of courtiers and advisors that had surrounded ‘Abbās, thus violently restructuring the harem’s reproductive and successional functions.
The objective of Maritz’s project is to investigate those two very different and yet surprisingly similar cases in a comparative framework that combines Global and Gender History. Maritz argued that these historical disciplines can be fused advantageously, in order to reintegrate the subjective experience into a global narrative. Of course, such an endeavour presents significant challenges based on the differences of the respective source material, which Maritz was keen to discuss.
As a starting point of her analysis she chose the social and physical construction of space. The harem is often perceived as a guarded and impenetrable space, static over time. This conservative perception overlooks that Shah ‘Abbās changed the outline of the harem by moving it further into the centre of the court and affording it the new function of child-rearing, which greatly strengthened its political importance. A similiarly guarded space for women at court was the Frauenzimmer that we find in Württemberg. The communication and the mobility of these women were strictly controlled and limited in order to protect their sexual honour and to secure a pious lifestyle on their part. Much like in Persia, however, the segregation of women did not automatically entail their removal from the courtly information flow and thus from political activity. Maritz showed that, in fact, the Frauenzimmer in Stuttgart was closely integrated into the courtly network and exchange took place across its boundaries in a way that could not be entirely controlled by the authority of the duke.

Callie Wilkinson, The Risks and Rewards of Cross-Cultural Connections at Indian Princely Courts, c. 1793-1818

Global history was the perfect cue for the following presentation by Callie Wilkinson, a doctoral student at Cambridge University, who is concerned with the role of the Munshis, Indian intermediaries and translators representing East India Company Officials at Indian courts. She is interested in the ways these agents influenced the power dynamics of the colonial reality and participated in shaping the colonial system. At the same time, she recognizes the danger of underestimating the ways in which the colonial power limited the agency of the colonized.
Wilkinson characterised the relationship between officials and Munshis as one of mutual doubt but also of interdependency. The British residents distrusted their Indian employees out of fear of being misled and misrepresented by them at court. This fear was to an extent grounded in racial prejudice, but also in the awareness that the Munshis held extremely powerful positions as intermediaries who de facto conducted business and communicated with the court on behalf of their employer. In return, the Munshis profited from the patronage relation and often spent their whole career working for the East India Company. Nevertheless, the British officials were first and foremost committed to the Company and their loyalty toward their Munshi was secondary.
In the discussion round it was brought up that from a European viewpoint the Munshis must have been in a conflicted situation working on the one hand for the colonizer and on the other hand being integrated at the court and in the Indian society. In the Indian cultural context though, pragmatics were more important in this case and the Munshis faced little stigma because of their work. In fact, the Indian court tried to gain influence over the Munshis and therefore over the British residents through financial benefits.